![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Just to expand a little on something I said on Twitter:
@snacky: It's so odd that people think by saying "Sad to hear about Amy Winehouse" you're saying "I don't care about the tragedy in Norway."
@snacky: Newsflash: You can be sad and have sympathy for more than one tragedy.
Strangely, my sympathy doesn't tap out at, "100 innocent Norwegians killed." That's a terrible tragedy, not just in scale of loss, but in the shock and horror that terrorist unleashed upon the entire nation of Norway.
And yes, Amy Winehouse was someone who made poor life choices, and her death was probably the result of those poor choices. But I loved her songs, and I can feel a sense of sadness and loss over her death, and at the same time, still care about the tragedy in Norway. I know, it's amazing! Like a magic trick!
The thing to remember is that each death is a tragedy to someone (and if it's not, that's a tragedy within itself). Amy Winehouse had family and friends who loved her and will mourn and grieve for her. And to dismiss her death by saying she was just another messed up celeb and we need to "keep things in perspective" because what happened in Norway was much more tragic - you know, I know about perspective, thanks. But just because the scale of loss is greater in Norway, it doesn't take away people's sadness over her death. You can't just say, "Stop being upset about THAT, because THIS is bigger." That's just absurd. That's not how life or emotions work.
Let me put it in perspective: my friend died last week, and the grief of his passing is not suddenly gone, erased magically because the death toll in Norway was so high. "Oh, there's not enough sadness to go around! I have to stop being sad over one thing, so I can be sad over this other thing now."
Sometimes you ARE just too consumed with grief or sadness over one thing, to devote much time or attention to another tragedy. That's human too, it happens to everyone, and I understand. But other people don't get to draw that line for you, and tell you when to start and stop caring about exactly what things.
You know, I went to a wake and funeral last week. And my friend's parents were incredibly generous, in the heart of their own grief. They said, "I know how much you loved him too" and "I know you'll miss him and I'm so sorry." And then after I passed through the receiving line, I was shown some pictures of my friend, and we all laughed, through our tears, because they were funny pictures and we were able to remember the good times, even while we still were grieving.
Because emotions are messy and complicated, and you don't stop laughing, even when you're still crying. And I just don't get it when people think grief is a medal you earned, and tragedy is trump card you can play... to shut people up and win something, I guess. I don't know what.
@tbq: I never understand the whole idea that we can only process one thing at a time. Our minds, hearts, and souls are bigger than that.
@snacky: It's so odd that people think by saying "Sad to hear about Amy Winehouse" you're saying "I don't care about the tragedy in Norway."
@snacky: Newsflash: You can be sad and have sympathy for more than one tragedy.
Strangely, my sympathy doesn't tap out at, "100 innocent Norwegians killed." That's a terrible tragedy, not just in scale of loss, but in the shock and horror that terrorist unleashed upon the entire nation of Norway.
And yes, Amy Winehouse was someone who made poor life choices, and her death was probably the result of those poor choices. But I loved her songs, and I can feel a sense of sadness and loss over her death, and at the same time, still care about the tragedy in Norway. I know, it's amazing! Like a magic trick!
The thing to remember is that each death is a tragedy to someone (and if it's not, that's a tragedy within itself). Amy Winehouse had family and friends who loved her and will mourn and grieve for her. And to dismiss her death by saying she was just another messed up celeb and we need to "keep things in perspective" because what happened in Norway was much more tragic - you know, I know about perspective, thanks. But just because the scale of loss is greater in Norway, it doesn't take away people's sadness over her death. You can't just say, "Stop being upset about THAT, because THIS is bigger." That's just absurd. That's not how life or emotions work.
Let me put it in perspective: my friend died last week, and the grief of his passing is not suddenly gone, erased magically because the death toll in Norway was so high. "Oh, there's not enough sadness to go around! I have to stop being sad over one thing, so I can be sad over this other thing now."
Sometimes you ARE just too consumed with grief or sadness over one thing, to devote much time or attention to another tragedy. That's human too, it happens to everyone, and I understand. But other people don't get to draw that line for you, and tell you when to start and stop caring about exactly what things.
You know, I went to a wake and funeral last week. And my friend's parents were incredibly generous, in the heart of their own grief. They said, "I know how much you loved him too" and "I know you'll miss him and I'm so sorry." And then after I passed through the receiving line, I was shown some pictures of my friend, and we all laughed, through our tears, because they were funny pictures and we were able to remember the good times, even while we still were grieving.
Because emotions are messy and complicated, and you don't stop laughing, even when you're still crying. And I just don't get it when people think grief is a medal you earned, and tragedy is trump card you can play... to shut people up and win something, I guess. I don't know what.
@tbq: I never understand the whole idea that we can only process one thing at a time. Our minds, hearts, and souls are bigger than that.
no subject
no subject
People actually think a "bigger" grief cancels out a "smaller" one? Wow, that's kind of cold and totally lacking in any understanding of human nature.
no subject